mike rossi

Tuesday, August 20, 2013 DEC offers Waterfowl Hunter Informational MeetingsThe New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) today announced two upcoming waterfowl hunter informational meetings: Thursday, August 29, from 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m., at the Iroquois National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Headquarters located on Casey Road in Alabama, Genesee County; and September 12 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., at the Montezuma Audubon Center in Savannah, Wayne County. These meetings will focus on topics of interest to waterfowl hunters in Western New York and the Iroquois and Montezuma NWR region. Topics of interest will include: Highlights of waterfowl management and research programs at Iroquois NWR, Tonawanda and Oak Orchard Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), Montezuma NWR and Northern Montezuma WMA; Regional and statewide waterfowl news and updates; Atlantic Flyway news; Waterfowl population status survey results; The New York waterfowl hunting season-setting process; and, Tentative 2013-14 duck and goose hunting seasons. Wildlife biologists from Iroquois and Montezuma NWRs and DEC will discuss items of interest to waterfowl hunters in an informational and interactive forum. They will present results of local and international surveys of waterfowl breeding populations and discuss habitat conditions and habitat management efforts. Updates of waterfowl management issues in the Atlantic Flyway will be presented, and this year's tentative waterfowl hunting seasons and bag limits will be discussed.

I am sure the money will go to better uses...

Wait, there is more bad news…That isn’t even all of the cuts to conservation this year… The farm bill was not renewed and therefore several key conservation programs will not be either… Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) Sodsaver

Are “they” delivering? Prior to 2013 NY Governor Cuomo proposed a sporting license fee reduction justified to increase non-resident hunting and simplify the existing program. NY already ranks 7th in non-resident hunters, likely due to bordering states with little hunting opportunity rather than abundance of game. The Governor’s proposal was backed by the NY State Conservation Council because they said that sportsmen are paying more and getting less from the DEC and therefore it is not necessary to maintain such a high balance in the conservation fund. In 2013 the proposal was signed into law and takes effect in February 2014. A number of years ago a lifetime sporting license was created along with a separate account within the conservation fund in which revenue from lifetime licenses was to be staged and then turned over to the state comptroller to be used in the short term investment pool. On the federal level during 2013 Congress and President Obama began to sequester five percent of federal conservation trust funds derived from the Pitman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts. The trust funds are not the only programs affected this year. Despite federal conservation investment being less than one percent of the total budget; Congress and the administration opted to make deep cuts into conservation funding cutting 20 programs by either eliminating them or zeroing them out. Those same programs have already been cut by 25% the last few years. The federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp has not seen a price increase since the 1990s and is still only $15. This year a complicated scheme was launched to allow the fee to float with economic factors. New York phased out its state migratory bird stamp a number of years ago and is unwilling to take advantage of increased conservation funding which would be generated by instituting a mourning dove hunting season. Conservation funding is correlated to sporting license revenue. In 2012 license sales stabilized nationwide but the long term trend is a decline in license revenue every year as less and less people hunt. Four special youth seasons have been established in NY under the rationale of sustaining hunter numbers thereby conservation funding. While residents desire more access and opportunity non-residents, mostly from New Jersey and Connecticut flock to NY for better hunting and public land opportunities. At a very minimum it is very arguable that the state chose a bad time to increase the burn-rate of its conservation fund considering the simultaneous negative activity with federal conservation programs. 20 Programs and Agencies Zeroed Out in FY 2014 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill 1. Bureau of Land Management Land Acquisition (-$22.3 million) 2. Fish and Wildlife Service Construction (-$19.1 million) 3. Fish and Wildlife Service Land Acquisition (-$54.6 million) 4. North American Wetlands Fund (-$35.4 million) 5. Neotropical Migratory Birds Conservation Fund (-$3.7 million) 6. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants (-$61.3 million) 7. National Park Service Land Acquisition and State Assistance (-$101.8 million) 8. Forest Service Land Acquisition (-$52.5 million) 9. Forest Service Special Acquisitions (-$0.9 million) 10. Forest Service Land Exchange Acquisitions (-$0.2 million) 11. Forest Legacy Program (-$53.3 million) 12. Forest Service Planning (-$39.2 million) 13. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (-$7.7 million) 14. Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts (-$8.5 million) 15. Woodrow Wilson Center (-$10.9 million) 16. Eisenhower Memorial Commission (-$1 million) 17. Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields (-$90 million) 18. Environmental Protection Agency Alaska Native Villages Water Infrastructure (-$9.5 million) 19. Environmental Protection Agency US Mexico Border Water Infrastructure (-$4.7 million) 20. Environmental Protection Agency Smart Growth (-$1.7 million

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation The model illustrates how conservation evolved in the U.S. and Canada since its beginning during the Teddy Roosevelt era. Although The Model is considered to have seven basic tenants, its roots go back to the fundamental reasons that our European ancestors got on boats and came to the New World. That is, that fish and game should not belong to a king or nobleman, but should be held in public trust. (Probably not what were you taught in elementary school about why Europeans immigrated to the USA.) Video (43 minutes) Note: The video does not address the fact that the public majority, not just hunters, is heavily engaged in conservation these days. : http://youtu.be/xRx-HcVQDRQ North American Model of Wildlife Conservation The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is the world’s most successful. No other continent has conserved as many species of native wildlife as North America. While other countries struggle to conserve the wildlife they have left, we enjoy great abundance and diversity of wildlife. This is due, in large part, to forward thinking by early conservationists who saw the need to conserve wildlife and their habitats. Their efforts were the source of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which strives to sustain wildlife species and habitats through sound science and active management. There are TWO basic principles to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation Our fish and wildlife belong to all North American citizens, and are to be managed in such a way that their populations will be sustained forever. In addition to these two basic principles there are “Seven Sisters” that make up the framework of this model. THE SEVEN SISTERS Wildlife Is Held In The Public Trust: The public trust doctrine means that wildlife belongs to everyone. Through shared ownership and responsibility, opportunity to enjoy wildlife is provided to all. Commerce In Wildlife Is Regulated: Early laws banning commercial hunting and the sale of meat and hides ensured the sustainability of wildlife through the regulation of harvest and the sale of wildlife parts such as teeth, claws and antlers. Hunting And Angling Laws Are Created Through Public Process: Hunting seasons, harvest limits and penalties imposed for violations are established through laws and regulations. Everyone has the opportunity to shape the laws and regulations applied in wildlife conservation. Hunting And Angling Opportunity For All: The opportunity to participate in hunting, angling and wildlife conservation is guaranteed for all in good standing, not by social status or privilege, financial capacity or land ownership. This concept ensures a broad base support for wildlife law enforcement, habitat conservation and research. Hunters And Anglers Fund Conservation: Hunting and fishing license sales and excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment pay for management of all wildlife, including wildlife species that are not hunted. Wildlife Is An International Resource: Proper stewardship of wildlife and habitats is both a source of national pride and an opportunity to cooperate with other nations with whom we share natural resources. Cooperative management of migrating waterfowl, songbirds and marine life is one example of successful international collaboration. Science Is The Basis For Wildlife Policy: The limited use of wildlife as a renewable natural resource is based on sound science. Wildlife agency professionals adapt management strategies based on population and habitat monitoring to achieve the sustainability of wildlife populations and their habitats. Source: Georgia Wildlife Resources Division 2070 U.S. Hwy. 278, SE, Social Circle, GA 30025 A Primer on the Wildlife Trust Source: Jeremy Bruskotter The wildlife trust doctrine–a branch of the broader public trust doctrine that deals specifically with wildlife–was established in a series of court cases that provide the foundation for state-based conservation of wildlife that some refer to as the North America Model of Wildlife Conservation. Two Supreme Court cases (i.e., Martin v. Waddell 41 U.S. 367 (1842) and Geer v. Connecticut 161 U.S. 519 (1896)), provide the basic foundation of this legal doctrine. In Martin v. Waddell, the court applied English common law to reject a landowner’s claim to an oyster fishery that was located under the public waters of the state of New Jersey. The court concluded that with the formation of the United States, the lands that had once belonged to England passed to the state of New Jersey; applying English common law, the court held that the “land under navigable waters…were to be held…in the same manner and for the same purposes that the navigable waters of England and the soils under them are held by the Crown.” English policy, since the time of the Magna Carta, was to preserve such resources “for the benefit of the public”. Thus, the landowner could not lay claim to the oyster fishery because his actions deprived the citizens of New Jersey any access to this resource, which was held collectively by the citizens of that state. Although the dispute in Martin v. Waddell focused on the lands under the navigable waters and the oyster beds attached thereto, the Court in Geer v. Connecticut, using a similar rational, extended the trust obligation to terrestrial wildlife (woodcock, ruffled grouse and quail). In this case, again relying on English common law, the court held that wildlife (ferae naturae ) were public property – “the ownership of the sovereign authority . . . [to be held in] trust for all the people of the state” and that it was the” duty of the legislature to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust and secure its beneficial use in the future to the people of the state.” These cases set the stage for modern wildlife management by state agencies, in which states act as trustees, managing and conserving wildlife resources on behalf of their citizens. This doctrine underpins our system of wildlife conservation in the United States, and is recognized by the Wildlife Society as one of the seven “pillars” of the North American Model. An Obligation to Conserve? While the notion of sovereign ownership of wildlife is well established, there has been little discussion regarding states’ obligations under the wildlife trust doctrine. The Court in Geer made it clear that the trustee-beneficiary relationship establishes an obligation on the part of the state to “to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust” (emphasis added). The court added that: “..the power or control lodged in the state, resulting from this common ownership, is to be exercised, like all other powers of government as a trust for the benefit of the people, and not as a prerogative for the advantage of the government as distinct from the people, or for the benefit of private individuals as distinguished from the public good” (emphasis added). Yet, the nature of states’ obligations is ill-defined for, as Freyfogle and Goble (2009:33) noted, “there is no trust document that sets forth the precise terms of the trust.” Moreover, there has been little opportunity–or need–to establish the case law necessary to “flesh out” these obligations because the statutory protections provided by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the associated federal control have largely precluded the need for protecting species outside the ESA framework; that is, because the ESA provides federal protections for species that are imperiled, there has been no need for interested citizens to force states to protect species through litigation, thus establishing the case law necessary to formalize states’ obligations. (Note: We disagree with part of this; lawsuits against state wildlife agencies and the FWS of the nature described have actually been common for at least 15 years and are not always the subject of federally or state listed species, although true most are ESA issues.) Confusion at the crux: Science, policy and wildlife management The interplay between science and policy and how it affects the objectives of wolf management lies near the heart of the wolf issue. Scientifically-collected and analyzed data has traditionally played an essential role in wildlife management in the United States. Time-tested methods are used to assist wildlife managers in understanding population trends and the factors (e.g. immigration, mortality, birth rates) that can potentially impact wildlife populations. This tradition has been symbolically codified as one of seven “components” or principles of the so-called North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (see also Organ & Mahoney 2007). It has also led to the wide-spread perception that wildlife management objectives should be determined by science rather than politics. Thus Malloney (2011:179) recently expressed frustration that “wolf management…tends to be guided by opinion and politics rather than science.” This perception misunderstands the role of science in wildlife policy; in fact, it misunderstands what types of questions science is capable of answering. Science can answering factual or “is” questions–bounded, of course, by some error. Science, cannot answer questions questions are fundamentally subjective or “normative” in nature. According to the Wildlife Society, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation demands that “science is the proper tool for the discharge of wildlife policy” (Batcheller et al. 2010 ). Here the use of the word “discharge”, which Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines as “to throw off or deliver a load, charge, or burden” further contributes to the confusion regarding the role of science. Science simply is not capable of “discharging” (or “delivering”) wildlife policy (or any other policy, for that matter); to set such high expectations for science is to set it, and scientists, up for failure. Rather, science merely informs policy decisions, which, as the term “policy” implies, are ultimately discharged via political processes. Some may think this distinction trivial, but it is a fundamental source of conflict where wolves are concerned. Until stakeholders–including wildlife professionals–recognize the limitations of science and the types of information it provides, the role of science will be a continued source of friction and conflict. (Note: the average person is a stakeholder and usually there are public comment opportunities, both by attending hearings and giving oral testimony or by submitting written comment. For science to inform a stakeholder, that person must distinguish between propaganda, pseudo-science, real science, and science journalism. Science Journalism is the most frequent form of information which is confused with scientific reports). Further Reading: 60 page PDF: http://www.gallatinwildlifeassociation.org/documents/scientific/North%20American%20Model%20of%20Wildlife%20Conservation.pdf 43 page PDF: http://www.wafwa.org/html/pdfs/AZ_NAM%20Training%20and%20Resource%20Guide%20-%20july2009.pdf 7 page PDF: http://fp7hunt.net/Portals/HUNT/4%203%20Scandinavia%20plus%20cover.pdf 17 page , non PDF document: The History of Wildlife Conservation and Research in the United States – and Implications for the Future http://cnr.ncsu.edu/fer/directory/documents/Article-HistoryofWildlifeResearch.pdf

The title is not appropriate and doesn't even make any sense as WNYBH already pointed out. I would say China and the US are getting along quite well these days. One disagreement between a number of countries is in the commercial harvest and pet trade of certain wildlife. In many cases certain countries including the USA treat such wildlife as contraband and ban it's importation. And naturally, many legal American citizens who run businesses oppose such bans. Just like any other industry, if it cuts into profits they oppose it. However, you are correct my title is misleading. Obama was pandering to American businesses not the Chinese government by softening his stance on shark fins.

Anytime it involves a migratory species, it is international conservation, But your comment can be taken a number of ways. First, lets talk about Cuomo's proposal to ban the sale of fins in New York. I am not to familiar with this issue, but unless you tell me otherwise, I don't have any reason to believe our governor is addressing shark harvest off the coast of NY within NYs waters. I think Cuomo is addressing the demand for fins by the restaurants in NY. Obama recently pushed a flurry of international conservation proposals, including ones which would require investment in other countries. Included in that flurry was bills about shark conservation. Only days later this article surfaces indicating the Obama administration is sympathizing with the American restaurant industry who oppose the fin ban and want to continue to profit off of a public resource which is not doing well from a population standpoint. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton is suddenly making public statements in support of international conservation. Do you know What else is going on at the same time? On the state level NY passes some suspicious proposal to slash sporting license fees for some reasons which make no sense whatsoever to any reasonable, thinking person. On the federal level a portion of conservation trust funds are being sequestered and not distributed to the states. Additionally a number of Farm Bill and other conservation programs have been zeroed-out this year. Fast forward back to all the above pro- conservation action by Obama, Cuomo, and Hillary and let me see you reconcile it with the above anti-conservation action also occurring right now? As I said, your comment can be interpreted several different ways, and I am not going to side-step the issue of other countries having cultures which overexploit international resources. This certainly is a real issue. However, one article indicates Obama is considering lending drones to Africa to combat poaching for foreign markets; but the other article says Obama is softening on his position to protect sharks from American markets... At least you can agree that is hypocritical?

It will take effect February 2014. I don't know how it will effect lifetimes, I do know that Cuomo's statement back when he proposed this was that one justification for it was to "simplify" buying a hunting license. (I didn't know buying a hunting license was complicated)... But it seems like this new law would complicate, not simplify lifetimes and generate a sleuth of accounting issues.... Guess will see what the governor, a few lawmakers, and cfab put together this time... But, Elmo, you are not following the script... You were suppose to say "What is the North American Wildlife Conservation Model?" That's ok, I will post it later, don't know if it should be put in Politics & Law or in general chit chat... Think I will post it in GCC and the moderators can adjust it if they want...

Not sure, but I don't think they are even legal for photography as he told you. If what he said is in fact true, it would undermine part of the rationale for the law.

I think you are largely right, but most of the market is actually oversees. Still it suggests lack of commitment and insincerity on the issue by the administration. Personally, I cant see cutting off 50 pounds of meat and dumping 500 pounds as a legitimate or wise use of a resource, even if it was a fish with a more stable conservation status. Blink an eye and next we hear about the poor we need to feed.... Granted large predators are not the healthiest thing to eat but that seems to only enter when it supports one agenda or another... Anyway, thanks for pointing out my error, but I think if one looks at the whole picture it appears to be a horse & pony show... Like I said elsewhere, Obama, Cuomo, and both Clintons have had their hands in the expansion of the energy industry and they made a lot of enemies with environmentalists just like they have with gun owners... Despite the fiscal cliff, sequestering conservation funds in the US and zeroing out a number of US conservation programs which survived every other administration; they all of a sudden are concerned with international conservation... Humm...

Obama endorses Chinese proposal for an exception to his own executive order to protect wildlife? Obama issues executive order to protect wildlife; then backs a proposal from China to make an exception????? If you read the following two articles both which surfaced today, that seems to be the case.... News August 19, 2013 Obama’s Executive Order to Protect Wildlife Will US Drones Fight Foreign Poachers? August 8, 2013 Sonia Horon (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION) President Obama is considering lending U.S. drones to Tanzania in an effort to combat the rapid growth of wildlife poaching. The population of elephants in Tanzania is declining at an alarming rate and wildlife groups estimate ten to twenty-five thousand elephants are killed in Tanzania every year for their ivory tusks. The areas in need of monitoring are too vast for rangers to properly monitor—leaving wildlife at further risk of being killed by greedy poachers. The news comes just weeks after Obama’s executive order to protect wildlife from illegal poaching. Read on to find out how the drones could help during this troublesome time. — Global Animal Approximately 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year. Photo credit: Stock photo Washington Times, Ashish Kumar Sen Tanzania’s storied wildlife reserves could soon get a watchful, winged inhabitant: U.S. drones. On his visit to the East African nation last month, President Obama discussed the possibility of using unarmed, unmanned aircraft to help overstretched park rangers combat the growing problem of elephant poaching in Tanzania’s vast wildlife reserves and national parks, Tanzanian Ambassador to the United States Liberata Mulamula told editors and reporters at The Washington Times this week. Wildlife groups estimate that 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year for their ivory tusks and the number of elephants in southern Tanzania has fallen by more than half. Much of the ivory is shipped illegally to Asian markets. “The extent of poaching is very, very, very high,” John Salehe, director of the African Wildlife Foundation’s Maasai Steppe, said in a phone interview from Tanzania. There has been sharp increase in elephant poaching over the past year, he said. Tanzanian officials say the area that needs to be monitored is vast with too few rangers. “There is trafficking, but also there is criminality, so we are fighting both,” said Mrs. Mulamula. “If we can work together, we can put an end to this.” That is where drones could play a crucial role. “The American administration is ready to put up funds to help us in areas where we think we can be able to work together and put an end to this trafficking and killings,” Mrs. Mulamula said. “One area, they said, was training [to] get more rangers. There was even suggestions that the U.S. government can help us with these drones.” Mrs. Mulamula said Mr. Obama did not make any commitment to provide drones to Tanzania. “But this was being said [in the discussions] that this was one of the possibilities,” she added. However, a senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, later said the U.S. is not considering providing drones to Tanzania but declined to elaborate on a meeting between Mr. Obama and Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete in Tanzania on July 1. Right after that meeting, Mr. Obama acknowledged the threat posed by poaching and trafficking of animal parts. Mr. Obama issued an executive order to, in part, help foreign governments tackle the problem. “[T]his includes additional millions of dollars to help countries across the region build their capacity to meet this challenge, because the entire world has a stake in making sure that we preserve Africa’s beauty for future generations,” Mr. Obama said. An official of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also will be assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam to support the Tanzanian government’s efforts to develop a wildlife security strategy. A State Department official, speaking on background, said the United States is “concerned by the growing involvement of transnational organized crime and armed militias in poaching and the illegal wildlife trade.” “These activities negatively impact economic livelihoods, health, security and the rule of law across the African continent.” Tanzania is not the only African nation where drones have been considered to combat the menace of poaching. The Ol Pejeta wildlife conservancy in Kenya has teamed up with Airware, a California-based firm, to build drones to protect endangered wildlife, including the northern white rhino, which is hunted for its horn. “We see the drone’s uses in three parts: deterrence, observation and tracking,” said Elodie Sampere, a spokeswoman for the Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Nanyuki, Kenya. The drones at Ol Pejeta are still in the test phase, but “just the rumor of an eye in the sky and the noise of it flying overhead will serve to deter potential incidents,” Mrs. Sampere said. The drones also would allow the conservancy to check on the safety of endangered animals and send critical information to rangers about the number of poachers and whether they are armed, she said. Drones also can track radio-frequency tags on endangered species, allowing rangers to monitor their movements. Ol Pejeta is looking for “a drone designed for conservation and not just an off-the-shelf ex-military solution,” Mrs. Sampere said. Drones have been used to monitor poachers in other parts of Africa as well, including the Kruger National Park in South Africa. In December, the World Wildlife Fund received a $5 million grant from Google to develop technological solutions to combat poaching. The project combines the use of drones with animal-tagging technologies and ranger patrols guided by analytical software. The technology will be tested over the three-year grant period in Africa and Asia. The illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn is driven by markets in Asia, particularly in China and Japan. Large quantities of ivory originating in Tanzania have been seized in the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan and Hong Kong. “The challenges are enormous, especially because they have that huge market in Asia,” Mrs. Mulamula said. Although international trade in ivory is banned, a one-time sale in 2008 perpetuated a legal market for ivory in China and Japan, according to the African Wildlife Foundation. The Chinese government has not been cooperative in African efforts to reduce the illegal trade in ivory, said Arend de Haas, of the London-based African Conservation Foundation. “China should increase law enforcement, coordinate with African governments and consider destroying confiscated ivory stocks to show their commitment to combat the ivory trade,” he said. However, Mrs. Mulamula said the Chinese government is sympathetic to Tanzania’s concerns. Khamis Kagasheki, Tanzania’s minister of natural resources and tourism, has been spearheading anti-poaching efforts in his country, but wildlife groups say much more needs to be done. “The Tanzanian government has not been alert enough [regarding] the rise in elephant poaching in the region and country,” Mr. de Haas said. Tanzanian officials announced in July that more than 1,200 poaching suspects were arrested over a 15-month period that ended in March. It was not clear how many were involved in elephant poaching. Two ivory traders were arrested in July. Mr. de Haas said official elephant-poaching statistics are lacking. “Slow political processes and corruption within local security and conservation institutes are major obstacles to quickly implement effective solutions,” he said Appeals courts considers shark fin ban Obama's staff backs challenge to California law Bob Egelko Published 5:10 pm, Wednesday, August 14, 2013 With support from the Obama administration, organizations of Chinese American businesses and suppliers of shark fins asked a federal appeals court Wednesday to halt enforcement of a California law banning the possession and sale of the main ingredient of shark fin soup, a traditional Chinese delicacy. The law was passed in 2011, but the prohibition on selling and serving shark fin soup took effect only last month. It was sponsored by conservation and animal-protection groups whose stated goals are to stop the cutting of fins from live sharks - a practice already banned in federal waters - and to protect consumers from mercury in the fins. But opponents, led by Bay Area Chinese restaurants and their suppliers, argued Wednesday that the law is discriminatory and conflicts with federal management of ocean resources. Chinese Americans are "the only community affected," Joseph Breall, lawyer for the Chinatown Neighborhood Association and Asian Americans for Political Advancement, told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. He said statements by some legislative supporters of the 2011 measure showed an intent to discriminate. For example, Breall said, one lawmaker observed that "we can't police the seas, but we can police Chinatown." But at least one member of the three-judge panel seemed unpersuaded. Judge Andrew Hurwitz noted that the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who in a Jan. 2 ruling left the law in effect, found that it was deigned to promote conservation and public health, and there was no evidence of intentional discrimination. "Why isn't that a finding that we have to give deference to?" Hurwitz asked. The case took on a new cast July 22 when the Obama administration, in written arguments to the appeals court, said the California law interferes with the underlying purpose of the federal law - to allow commercial shark fishing to continue while prohibiting the "finning" of live sharks. By banning the sales of fins from sharks that were caught intact in federal waters, the state law "may effectively shut down shark fishing," Justice Department lawyers wrote. Although the federal law doesn't explicitly forbid such state regulation, they argued, it implicitly bars states from interfering with a healthy market for sharks that were legally caught. The National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed a regulation that could limit such laws in California and other states, including New York and Florida, a proposal protested by several dozen members of Congress including Democratic Reps. Jared Huffman of San Rafael and Sam Farr of Monterey. The state's lawyer, Deputy Attorney General Alexandra Gordon, said the Obama administration's argument was based on speculation that "something bad could happen in the future." "There's no reason to assume that our law will have any more impact on the market for sharks than the federal ban on finning," Gordon told the court. If California can't ban the sale of shark fins because of a possible impact on the fishery market, "states could never regulate the sale of wildlife parts," like ivory from elephants, said attorney Ralph Henry, whose clients include the Humane Society of the United States and the Asian Pacific American Ocean Harmony Alliance. He said the latter organization represents a substantial segment of Chinese Americans who support the California law.

http://youtu.be/TFcn3CBFC7E

Here are some links about the history of pheasants in the USA: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8444 http://randywakeman.com/WhereAmerican%20PheasantsCameFrom.htm

I found a couple of links about the history of pheasants in the USA. The original Oregon releases was in fact of wild hatched birds. In that era, it was common practice for Chinese farmers to capture by netting them and sell them for food. A US diplomat in China obtained birds from that source and shipped over birds. A hunt-able population was established in the Oregon/Washington region after about 13 years. The Romans and other countries imported wild birds from China and established pheasant populations throughout the world long before the U.S. Here are the links: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8444 http://randywakeman.com/WhereAmerican%20PheasantsCameFrom.htm

Elmo, In much of Europe the average person cant afford to hunt. What differs here is we follow what is known as the North American Conservation Model. It has worked for 75 years. Despite the role of sportsmen in leading conservation and a 75 year head start, the non shooting public majority is now engaged in conservation and will out spend sportsmen in much less time than the next 75 years. While this is not a bad thing and actually is a necessity as sporting license revenue continues its downward spiral, it has political implications which will challenge our legal right to hunt and the character of wildlife policy...

There is always stuff to do... But I was stunned the last 2 weeks or so my wife is asking if we got ammo, starts waterproofing our jackets, etc... I think she is as excited as me to get out there in September...

Then why do we even have CFAB? Should we recruit hunters to sustain the STIP instead of the CF? The annual license revenue is protected by NY state as well as federal law from diversion or sweeping. The Fish and Game Account , which has nothing to do with fish & game might violate or loophole those laws. Diversion of sporting license revenue disqualifies a state from receiving federal conservation funds. The USFWS administers the federal conservation funds. For several consecutive years, the NY state has failed US Fish and Wildlife Service audits and it was alleged to be due to budget language. I am not sure if this is not something to do with the Fish and Game Account. Even if it has nothing to do with federal funding it is still wrong and issue-rich to divert license revenue from conservation. This was not a system that was set up to subsidize state government and sportsmen claim to be conservationists and to "pay for conservation".

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/08/pipeline-incidents-since-1986.html

I am surprised you guys aren't jumping at this - they might connect landowners with funding sources or at least cover the topic...

According to Swiderski, "The DEC is interested in our willingness to run this [immunocontraception] experiment and would be happy to work with us. So we may have something that will address the [deer] issue." LOL... The mayor and Tuffs University would have to get a special permit from the DEC to do this....

My definition of a wild bird is one that was hatched in the wild rather than an incubator. Handled correctly, Incubator hatched birds can be sporting and quite challenging to hunt, but they are not wild birds from an ecological perspective...

Its pretty easy to trap them and also to mark them in some way and its done all the time. Trapping is definitely the way to approach this, look at the picture posted with all those roads & houses. The stupidity is that after trapping them, they plan to release them. Once they got them they should be slaughtered, not released.(no marking required ) If they are chemically euthanized the meat cannot be donated. It would either be dispatch them as done in slaughter houses or inject a barbiturate overdose and dispose of the entire carcass.

A couple more things came to mind about Doe Whacker's link to the PF article. I am not sure if all hunters know that NY pheasant stocking has two different programs. There is a program which the state stocks adult birds on lands open to public hunting. I like this program. The other program called the day old chick program or something like that I don't care for. This seems to be more related to Doe Whacker's PF link. In some states, and perhaps NY, the chick program in theory would be more than put N take hunting, and restore or create self sustaining populations. This program, as indicated in the article, does not work in sustaining populations. Besides the fact it does not work in establishing sustaining populations; I don't have faith in the program entrusting members of the public in raising and releasing the birds they obtain for free on areas open to public. The potential for abuse of the agreement is great and there is also an equity problem - suburban and urban hunters do not have the facilities to participate in the program, unless some gracious rural hunters tell them where the birds they raised all summer have been released, how likely is that? So I have to restate my position. I still support put N take pheasant hunting, but not the day old chick program. It also occurred to me that one reason some hunters are not favorable about the state pheasant stocking program, might very well be because they are only familiar with the day old chick program. Pheasant stocking by the state of adult birds on WMAs as well as private and public cooperator lands, is much different, if you have not tried it give it a shot. Now we have three distinctions: 1. Wild pheasant restoration, which may or may not include transplanting wild hatched birds 2. State pheasant release of farm hatched birds immediately before and during hunting season 3. Day Old Chick Program I support number 1 and 2, but not number 3.

Doc, I understand you that are saying send safe supporters a message. But why is Steve Piatt and company focusing on Sweeney? The only common denominators which connects the dots is that he stalled the crossbow bill and he is a democrat. The recent anti-Sweeney rhetoric is not about the Safe Act, it is about the crossbow bill and the republicans are framing it as a partisan issue which serves them very well, but it doesn't do sportsmen any good. I will post a voting registration link or mail anyone a voter registration form if they want to (try) to vote Sweeney out... Just stop make everything the republican party, the NYSCC, and the Outdoor Writers Association says or publishes sacred cows in the world of hunting...

If they bought the lifetime and were aware that the revenue was going to be put in a separate account which is turned over to the state comptroller who transfers it into the state investment pool, yeah, I am knocking them. More importantly, I am informing, not knocking others who are not aware of this practice, especially those who have not yet made the mistake of buying a lifetime. This is a hunting forum, if I wanted to discuss social issues, government spending, taxes etc.. I would be on a different forum or at a sportsmen federation meeting. As far as gun control , I oppose any gun control, even handgun permits. But you are trivializing tens of millions of dollars (so far) diverted from conservation. As far as hunter recruitment, let me ask you what is your personal stake in it? Because Steve Piatt or someone like that writes about it becomes the sacred cow in the world of hunting? If you don't care about millions of conservation dollars lost via lifetime licenses, why do you care about loss of conservation revenue via dropping recruitment and increased desertion? Go mischaracterize something someone else says, I don't have time for this. And there are more people on here then you think that are getting sick of it...